Does this suggest the tide is turning on immigration ?

Moby

[QUOTE=Sampong;

Never said she wasn't entitled to express her views. We've been through this
earlier in the thread. All you're doing is trying to start the same argument
over again. In fact, you frame that statement - as have some other posters to
make it seem that I made this claim - so go through each and every one of my
posts in this thread - and show me where I said she wasn't entitled to
her opinion. Go on then......I challenge you.

There you go. I think the inference of your statement was pretty clear actually:-

'It's a fate shared by Diane James, the Eastleigh UKIP candidate who beat the
Tories into 3rd place. She and UKIP were called a "disgusting" party who
"prey on the vulnerable in society" by a young lady in the audience,
who......as it turns out just happens to be a paid labour party activist
"randomly" selected by the labour supporter Dimbelby.





So "random" was the selection that she somehow knew prior to the show that
her question was going to be selected and was bragging about it on her twitter
page asking all her followers to watch QT.





What a corrupt shambles the BBC is.'

Sampong

Moby wrote: »

There you go. I think the inference of your statement was pretty clear actually:-

Eh?

Where in that statement do I say she isn't entitled to her opinion? Where in that statement do I even infer it?

You are making things up as you go along.

In that statement, I repeated what Amy said, and then pointed out that she wasn't just a random audience member, but a paid Labour party activist - which is true.

Nowhere do I say she isn't entitled to her opinion.

So come on then.........show me where I infer it if you "think the inference of my statement is pretty clear actually".......

You like to make things up don't you Moby, like anybody who supports Ukip is a xenophobe and a racist.

N1AK

Sampong wrote: »

Here are the stats for that;

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2013/feb_2013/2013010000160.pdf

I'm not saying the figure isn't true but what you linked to definitively isn't the stats for it (it doesn't include either the number of criminals by nation).

Sampong

N1AK wrote: »

I'm not saying the figure isn't true but what you linked to definitively isn't the stats for it (it doesn't include either the number of criminals by nation).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9896121/Up-to-one-in-three-Romanians-arrested-figures-show.html

Some 27,725 Romanians were arrested for offences in London over the past five years, Scotland Yard said, including 10 for murder and more than 140 for rape.
The figures, published under the Freedom of Information Act

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2013/feb_2013/2013010000160.pdf

from that report

Romania Total
2008 - 2201
2009 - 4958
2010 - 6396
2010 - 6787
2012 - 7383

Total - 27,725

They are definitely the stats behind that 30% figure reported in the media.

And it breaks the data down by crime type - and nationality.

So i'm really not sure where you are coming from with that statement.

P.S. come on Moby, I am still waiting for you to show me where I said a person is not entitled to their opinion......or was this another one of your lies?

BobQ

Sampong wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9896121/Up-to-one-in-three-Romanians-arrested-figures-show.html

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2013/feb_2013/2013010000160.pdf


They are definitely the stats behind that 30% figure reported in the media.

And it breaks the data down by crime type - and nationality.

So i'm really not sure where you are coming from with that statement.

?

I think the confusion that needs to be resolved is this.

The Telegraph article you reference refers to

Some 27,725 Romanians were arrested for offences in London over the past five years

The Police statistics you reference are a FOI request about the numbers of ARRESTS in THE UK (read the first page) but uses the same number.

Its possible that data provided by the Met Police was just about London (as the Telegraph has assumed perhaps because of the source) but assuming they answered the question asked its about UK arrests.

GlynD posted #28 that:

It may help you to understand though when you realise that 30% of all Romanians living in London have been found guilty of crime.

You then stated #29 that the evidence for this assertion was the above article.

Here are the stats for that;

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/di...3010000160.pdf

Clearly if the original data relates to all of UK and refers to arrests (which could include arrests for crimes committed in Romania) saying it relates to "guilty of crimes" in London is not statistically correct.

Do you see the quandary?

The above is not really surprising since (as Amy pointed out on QT) and I mentioned in #64

The comment about UKIP being disgusting was made in the context of them praying on vulnerable people by telling them that 4 million Bulgarians are heading to a street near them. She pointed out this figure appeared in UKIP polling literature by assuming a poll by the Bulgarian Government showing that 56% of people wanted to emigrate. UKIP's interpretation of this was that all 4m of them would come to UK. If this is an indication of UKIP's integrity in using statistics heaven help us if they ever get into power. If UKIP indulge in that sort of scaremongering no wonder they get the flack they do. Your candidate's response was poor and even then she had to be asked on two occasions by Dimbleby to answer the question.

The response of your candidate to this allegation was that the figures UKIP had used were "correct and accurate" based on Bulgarian Government data.

Sampong

zzzzzzzZZZZZZ..........

Nevertheless, 27,000 arrests over 5 years from a pool of 68,000 people is an awful lot of arrests proportionately.

68,000 according to the 2011 reporting 1st spoken language.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_297002.pdf

Of course, someone will be along shortly to mention that actually the population of Romanians in the UK is much higher than that according to Eurostat. My word........are we to suggest by any chance that the cencus data is innacurate due to the fact that many didn't fill in the form?

I hear on the grapevine that rouge landlords were discouraging their tenants from filling in the census forms.

This makes a mockery of "statistics".

Whether or not the data refers to London or the whole of the UK doesn't really matter. What does matter is the broader point that there are a large proportion of arrests based on the population of Romanians in the UK. And that will be the case whether you use the 68,000 population figure from the census or the 90 odd thousand figure published by Eurostat.

You seem to take great joy in pointing out rather obvious facts such as the report being number of arrests and not convictions, colouring the text red and asking if I see the quandary........

but consider this. Those arrest figures only relate to the ones they caught. There aren't any statistics for the ones that got away with it.

I'll leave it up to you to form an opinion on the impact the changes that occur in 2014 will have on crime rates.

Personally, I don't think it will cause crime to go down.........

No doubt Moby will be along shortly to call me a racist for thinking such a thing.

BobQ

Sampong wrote: »

Nevertheless, 27,000 arrests over 5 years from a pool of 68,000 people is an awful lot of arrests proportionately.
'''''''''''''''''''
Whether or not the data refers to London or the whole of the UK doesn't really matter. What does matter is the broader point that there are a large proportion of arrests based on the population of Romanians in the UK.
'''''''''''''''

You seem to take great joy in pointing out rather obvious facts such as the report being number of arrests and not convictions, colouring the text red and asking if I see the quandary........

but consider this. Those arrest figures only relate to the ones they caught. There aren't any statistics for the ones that got away with it. ..............................

No doubt Moby will be along shortly to call me a racist for thinking such a thing.

Sampong I agree that if these statistics are correct then the proportion of arrests is disproportionately high. But I do think it helps to quote the statistics accurately.

For example you state "Those arrest figures only relate to the ones they caught." No they relate to ones they arrested. The ones that got away were (as you say) not recorded. I accept there will be some that got away but equally there will be some in all the other nationalities (including the British one) that got away and were not recorded. More importantly the figures realte to those arrested and not charged as well as those that were charged. But I agree the figures appear high.

Sampong

BobQ wrote: »

For example you state "Those arrest figures only relate to the ones they caught." No they relate to ones they arrested.

Pointless pinickerty statements like that really bore me as they serve only to direct attention, once again from the real issue - something a lot of posters on here are very adept at. Caught/Arrested........not much difference really. To arrest someone you usually have to "catch" them, rather than invite them down to the cop shop for tea and biscuits.

BobQ wrote: »

. But I agree the figures appear high.

Steady on Moby will be along shortly to have a go at you. You're bordering on xenophobe.

StevieJ

Sampong wrote: »

I hear on the grapevine that rouge landlords were discouraging their tenants from filling in the census forms.

Is that what those Reds under the bed are up to now? moved into BTL

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

Sampong I agree that if these statistics are correct then the proportion of arrests is disproportionately high. But I do think it helps to quote the statistics accurately.

For example you state "Those arrest figures only relate to the ones they caught." No they relate to ones they arrested. The ones that got away were (as you say) not recorded. I accept there will be some that got away but equally there will be some in all the other nationalities (including the British one) that got away and were not recorded. More importantly the figures realte to those arrested and not charged as well as those that were charged. But I agree the figures appear high.

I don't see why any of these points are important at all - as the stats are prepared on the same basis for every national group. Unless you have some evidence that either (I) Romanians are disproportiately the victims of wrongful arrest or (II) the Met Police are better at tracking down and arresting Romanians suspects then the figures seem a reasonable comparison (when taken alongside the size of each population) of the offending rates amongst different national groups.